Slashdot Mirror
Using Games To Predict Terrorist Actions?
Thanks to Popular Science for its feature article discussing the opportunities for using game-based simulations to predict the actions of "allies, enemies and even terrorists." The article explains: "The need for sim Qaeda agents is taking modelers down strange paths. The team at Moves [creator of the America's Army recruiting game] is trying to model the behavior and thinking of terrorists by creating a series of computer characters to populate a model code-named Iago, after Shakespeare's arch villain." However, Will Wright, creator of The Sims, injects a note of caution with regard to the general concept, pointing out: "As you scale up to larger and larger systems, you can probably model large trends... But what the Iraqi resistance will do over the next month is based on thousands of tiny local factors that seem to always be in flux and to be too granular to be modeled."
That reminds me the excellent "Fundation" series by Isaac Asimov. In that book, there was a man that created a new research line called "psico-history". That research allow him to say what would happen in the future by using statistics over a large group of people, and the predictions only worked on large groups, not on individuals. Someting like "a group will always work in some ways, but an individual will work randomly".
It seems that we are seeing the born of psico-history, using games.
I disagree a bit about this. I think it is wishful thinking to conclude that someone who follows a "normal" life and does not have homicidal tendencies could think of unpredictable ways to initiate terrorist acts.
For example, I believe it was a commission in 2000 (chaired by, I think, Paul Bremer) that warned of the use of airplanes as missiles to attack targets inside the USA.
Will Wright's point about granular details being too hard to model is only valid to a certain point and depends on what you are trying to achieve. If you are trying to model a world that predicts terrorist behavior, it seems we are far away from such abilities. If you are trying to model a world that gives a lot of freedom and capabilities to individuals, I think the real individuals will eventually demonstrate new and creative ways to do things.
I see a real danger here in that those individuals who can think in such creative ways would be branded as "high risk" individuals. There are a lot of people who assume you are dangerous merely based on your ability to think of violent behavior. The next step in this approach is that if you are willing to engage in such violent behavior in a virtual setting, you are more inclined to engage in the same behavior in the real world.
People have their own conclusions about whether any of that is true. Personally, the idea that virtual behavior or mind thoughts demonstrate a higher likelihood of such behavior is a little tough to accept. I can personally say that I have thoughts, fantasies and ideas that I would never initiate in the real world for a variety of reasons. I would never accept that I am a high risk individual because I think of such things. Of course some crimes are inevitably preceded by fanatasies about it. For example, rapists probably play out rape fantasies in their head before committing actual rapes. But going the other direction and establishing causation that all people who fanatasize about rape are potential rapists (or even inevitable rapists) is a bit ridiculous by most common sense measures.
The other risk is that such a modeled environment would also allow individuals who truly do have a propensity towards such behavior to practice their acts before engaging in them, even perfecting their plans. It is one thing to accept the benefits of pilot schools even when they are abused into training centers for terrorists. It is quite another to intentionally set up an environment where wannabe terrorists are given the tools for practicing terrorism, even if the goal is to prevent the behavior in real life.
Perhaps we could have a questionnaire at the beginning. Question 1: Are you a terrorist? Only those who answer no are allowed in the game.
That's why you have forecasters. A good one (I've got a little better success rate than most local weathermen, but The Weather Channel has the truly elite) only uses the 'models' as a tool to help him decide, based on experience and intuition, where the eye will land.
So, the U.S. uses complex simulations to predict terror attacks. Hypothetically, in response, terrorists use complex computers to predict US counter-attacks.
Eventually, the two sides solely use their computers, instead of actually attacking.
It gets a bit fuzzy when Matthew Broderick steps in and the computer learns the only positive outcome is not to fight at all.
God Bless America. Why? Did it sneeze?
In the book, this guy built a model of earth and used it to predict earthquakes. It worked fine for a while, but it started failing more and more often. The book never gets around to exactly what happens with the model because it gets destroyed in an earthquake...
Which is about all we need. A terrorist who happens to have a sense of poetic justice and blows up the very machine intended to predict his next target.
I'd be a little worried playing this game. What if you were really good and you happened to simulate some attack a little before it happened in much the same way you did it in the game. Next thing you know you'd be a suspected terrorist.